north river bridge · north river bridge – 2017 detailed bridge condition survey county of...

1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, Ontario

K7M8N2

Tel: (343) 266-0002

Fax: (343) 266-0028

NORTH RIVER BRIDGE

2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey

Site No.: 046001

(MTO Site No.: 026-0034)

AG Project No.: 17523-1

July 2017

Prepared For:

County of Peterborough, Public Works 310 Armour Road Peterborough, Ontario K9H 1Y6

North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1

Ainley Group Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 Structure Identification Sheet ........................................................................................... 1

2.0 Key Plan .......................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 Summary of Significant Findings ..................................................................................... 3

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Wearing Surface .......................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Concrete Deck Slab ..................................................................................................... 4

3.4 Deck Soffit ................................................................................................................... 5

3.5 Other Components....................................................................................................... 6

3.5.1 Barrier System ...................................................................................................... 6

3.5.2 Curbs & Sidewalks ................................................................................................ 6

3.5.3 Abutment Walls ..................................................................................................... 7

3.5.4 Wingwalls ............................................................................................................. 8

3.5.5 Embankments and Slope Protections ................................................................... 8

3.5.6 Approach Guiderail ............................................................................................... 8

4.0 Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets ................................................................... 9

4.1 Asphalt Covered Deck / Deck Riding Surface .............................................................. 9

4.1.1 Dimensions and Area ............................................................................................ 9

4.1.2 Asphalt Surface Cracks ........................................................................................ 9

4.1.3 Asphalt Condition and Depth ................................................................................ 9

4.1.4 Waterproofing ......................................................................................................10

4.1.5 Concrete Cover – Core and Sawn Samples .........................................................10

4.1.6 Corrosion Activity .................................................................................................10

4.1.7 Defective Cores and Sawn Samples ....................................................................11

4.1.8 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile ........................................................................11


Ainley Group Page ii

4.1.9 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar ......................................................................12

4.1.10 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A) ......................................12

4.1.11 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar

(N/A)………………………………………………………………………………………………...12

4.1.12 Concrete Air Entrainment .....................................................................................13

4.1.13 Compressive Strength .........................................................................................13

4.2 Exposed Concrete Components – South Barrier (EBL) ...............................................14

4.2.1 Dimensions and Area ...........................................................................................14

4.2.2 Cracks (medium and wide) ..................................................................................14

4.2.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction ....................................................................................14

4.2.4 Concrete Cover ....................................................................................................14


4.2.6 Delamination and Spalls ......................................................................................15

4.2.7 Scaling .................................................................................................................15

4.2.8 Honeycombing .....................................................................................................15





(N/A)…… ...........................................................................................................................17



4.3 Exposed Concrete Components – North Barrier (WBL) ..............................................18




4.3.4 Concrete Cover ....................................................................................................18


Ainley Group Page iii



4.3.7 Scaling .................................................................................................................19

4.3.8 Honeycombing .....................................................................................................19





(N/A)…… ...........................................................................................................................21



4.4 Exposed Concrete Components – West Abutment Wall..............................................22




4.4.4 Concrete Cover ....................................................................................................22



4.4.7 Scaling .................................................................................................................23

4.4.8 Honeycombing .....................................................................................................23





(N/A)…… ...........................................................................................................................25




Ainley Group Page iv

4.5 Exposed Concrete Components – East Abutment Wall ..............................................26




4.5.4 Concrete Cover ....................................................................................................26



4.5.7 Scaling .................................................................................................................27

4.5.8 Honeycombing .....................................................................................................27





(N/A)……. ..........................................................................................................................29



4.6 Exposed Concrete Components – West Wing Walls (N/A) ..........................................30

4.7 Exposed Concrete Components – East Wing Walls (N/A) ...........................................30

4.8 Expansion Joints (N/A) ...............................................................................................31

4.9 Drainage .....................................................................................................................33

5.0 Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures ..............................................................34

5.1 Delaminations .............................................................................................................34

5.2 Concrete Cover ...........................................................................................................34

5.3 Corrosion Activity ........................................................................................................35

6.0 Core Logs – Asphalt Covered Bridge Decks ...................................................................36

7.0 Core Photographs and Sketches ....................................................................................40


Ainley Group Page v

8.0 Asphalt Sawn Sample Logs ............................................................................................47

9.0 Core Log for Exposed Concrete .....................................................................................49

10.0 Asphalt Sawn Sample Photographs ...............................................................................51

11.0 Site Photographs – 5/24/2017 ........................................................................................53

12.0 Drawings .........................................................................................................................

12.1 Corrosion Potential Contours .......................................................................................

12.2 Delamination Survey ....................................................................................................

12.3 Asphalt Cover and Concrete Cover ..............................................................................


Ainley Group

1.0 Structure Identification Sheet

GENERAL INFORMATION

STRUCTURE NAME: North River Bridge

MTO SITE NUMBER: MTO-026-0034 DISTRICT NUMBER:

HIGHWAY ABOVE: County Road 46

TYPE OF STURCTURE: Single Span Rigid Frame

NUMBER OF SPANS: 1 SPAN LENGTHS: 9.14 m

ROADWAY WIDTH: 7.32 m YEAR BUILT: 1966

DIRECTION OF STRUCTURE: E/W

SEQUENCE NUMBER: TOWNSHIP NUMBER:

LHRS NUMBER: BRIDGE NUMBER (MUNIC.): 046001

LOCATION: 1.3 km East of CR 47 JURISDICTION:

INSPECTOR’S NAME: Ramin Rameshni PhD , P.Eng

PARTY MEMBERS: Adam Reczek; Bill Harvey; Josh Charlton

DATE OF INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 24, 2017

TEMPERATURE: 24oC WEATHER: Sunny Clear

MTO REGION: Eastern AADT: 1700

DECK RIDING SURFACE: Asphalt

YEAR LAST REHABILITATED:

ENGINEER’S STAMP:


Ainley Group Page 2

2.0 Key Plan

North River Bridge

Site No. 046001 / MTO-026-0034

County Road 46

County of Peterborough, ON


Ainley Group Page 3

3.0 Summary of Significant Findings

3.1 Introduction

Ainley Graham & Associates (Ainley Group) was retained by the County of Peterborough to

conduct a detailed bridge condition survey for North River Bridge (Site No. 046001). The scope

of investigation include corrosion potential survey for the bridge deck and abutment walls.

North River Bridge is located in the Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, on County Road

46, approximately 1.3 km east of County Road 47. The structure is a single span, concrete rigid

frame bridge with an asphalt wearing surface carrying two lanes of traffic in east-west direction.

The structure has a span of 9.14 m and accommodates a roadway width of 7.32 m. There are

no expansion joints for the structure. North River Bridge was constructed in 1966, and there is

no history of major rehabilitation undertaken for this structure.

Fieldwork for this assignment was completed on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 by Ainley Group,

under supervision of a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario. The laboratory

testing associated with this assignment was carried out by Golders Associates Ltd. The number

of cores and sawn samples extracted for this assignment, is in accordance with the

requirements of the MTO Structural Rehabilitation Manual (2007) for an “updated” Detailed

Bridge Condition Survey. The last Detailed Condition Survey was completed in 2014. This

report conforms to the standard format for MTO Detailed Bridge condition Survey.

3.2 Wearing Surface

The bridge riding surface is comprised of asphalt pavement placed over the existing concrete

deck. The asphalt riding surface over the bridge deck and approaches was observed to be in an

overall fair to poor condition with numerous sealed and unsealed, wide and medium cracks.

Localized depression, potholes and other bottom-up defects were observed on the asphalt

wearing surface (Section 11.0, Photos 3 to 5)

The cores and sawn samples reveal that there is no waterproofing system in place across the

entire bridge deck. The core taken from approach confirms that there is no approach concrete

slab for this structure. The asphalt thickness, measured at the cores and sawn samples, ranges

from 85 mm to 111 mm with an average thickness of 97 mm. The 2014 Bridge Detailed Deck


Ainley Group Page 4

Condition Survey report indicated that the asphalt thickness ranged from 90 mm to 110 mm with

an average thickness of 98 mm (Section 12.3).

3.3 Concrete Deck Slab

The condition of the concrete deck was identified through visual observation at cores and sawn

sample locations. The concrete deck was found to be in an overall poor condition. Medium to

severe scaling and delamination was observed at all cores and sawn sample locations (Section

10.0). The core samples taken from the bridge deck reveal that the reinforcing steel is in fair to

good condition, evidencing localized light rust.

The concrete deck drain system comprises of six (6) 75 mm diameter pipes. Three (3) of the

drains were obstructed with debris, mud and asphalt, and were not functioning as designed. The

rest are placed with an approximate 35 mm recess to the asphalt riding surface. Accessible

deck drains exhibited severe corrosion with no extension below the soffit (Section 11.0, Photos

6 and 7) This has contributed to the significant concrete delamination and spall with exposed

corroded rebar around the drain outlets on the soffit, resulted from salt-laden runoff water.

Concrete cover readings were taken at all sawn sample locations. The measured concrete

cover ranged from 91 mm to 110 mm with an average of 98 mm. The 2014 Bridge Detailed

Deck Condition Survey report indicated that the concrete cover ranged from 65 mm to 85 mm

with an average thickness of 75 mm (Section 12.3).

The scope of work did not include any concrete testing for compressive strength or air

entrainment level. The 2014 Bridge Detailed Deck Condition Survey report indicated that the

concrete compressive strength was determined to be 36 MPa. It also indicated that the concrete

was marginally air entrained with an air content of 7.1%, specific surface of 17.43, and spacing

factor 0.167.

A corrosion potential survey was completed for the bridge deck with readings ranging from -

0.422 V to -0.620 V with an average reading of -0.587 V. This indicates that 100% of the bridge

deck has a 90% probability that the reinforcing steel is corroding (Section 12.1). It is noteworthy

that the 2014 Bridge Detailed Deck Condition Survey report indicated that only 93% if the deck

has a 90% probability of corrosion occurring in reinforcing steel, with an average corrosion


Ainley Group Page 5

potential reading of -0.438 V. This indicates there has been significant increase in the corrosion

potential on the deck since last detailed inspection in 2014.

The chloride ion content of concrete in deck was measured in one (1) core sample (C5). The

chloride ion content profile at core C5 followed the expected pattern for a bridge deck; having

the highest chloride ion content at the top of the concrete and decreasing at every horizon

tested. However, from the fourth horizon (60 mm – 70 mm) to the fifth horizon (80 mm - 90 mm)

the chloride ion content increased from 0.058% to 0.115%. The abrupt change in chloride

content may be due to the potential change in the aggregate to paste ratio in that level. A higher

percentage of aggregate would result in lower chloride ion content since aggregate does not

absorb chloride as easy as the cementitious paste. Further testing is, however, required to

confirm this. Nonetheless, the chloride ion content at core C5 did not level off and, therefore, no

background value was obtained from the core to adjust the readings.

The chloride content measurement for the core C5 ranges from 0.058% to 0.317% by mass of

concrete. In accordance with MTO Rehabilitation Manual, the chloride threshold value

necessary to depassivate embedded steel and permit corrosion (in the presence of oxygen and

moisture) is 0.025% by mass of concrete. The chloride content in Core C5 was tested to a depth

90 mm. The average cover to the top of steel reinforcement is found to be 98 mm and therefore

there is no reading available at the rebar level. Nevertheless, regression of the data obtained for

lower depths indicates that the chloride content at the level of top rebar will most likely be above

the 0.025% threshold.

3.4 Deck Soffit

The condition of the deck soffit and fascia was in fair to poor condition, evidencing extensive

localized medium to severe spalling, delamination, corrosion of reinforcement, medium to wide

cracks, and efflorescence along the middle and exterior edges of the deck soffit (Section 11.0,

Photos 8 to 10)

The fascia on both the north and south sides of the bridge showed light scaling throughout with

light corrosion of reinforcement and medium alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) (Section 11.0,

Photos 11 and 12).


Ainley Group Page 6

3.5 Other Components

3.5.1 Barrier System

North River Bridge features a concrete post and railing barrier system and safety curb on both

the north and south sides of the roadway. The exposed concrete surfaces of the barrier system

were sounded for delamination. The general condition of the barrier on both sides was fair to

poor, with medium to severe scaling, spalling, delamination, disintegration, AAR and corrosion

of reinforcement (Section 11.0, Photos 13 to 17).

Concrete cover survey was carried out for both north and south barrier systems. Concrete cover

for the north barrier ranged from 48 mm to 67 mm, with an average of 56 mm. The concrete

cover for the south barrier ranged from 21 mm to 37 mm, with an average of 26 mm (Section

12.3).

Corrosion potential survey was completed for both north and south barriers. The half-cell

readings for the north barrier ranged from -0.399 V to -0.601 V with an average of -0.520 V. The

half-cell readings for the south barrier ranged from -0.422 V to -0.609 V, with an average of -

0.497 V. The half-cell readings indicate that 100% of both barrier walls has a 90% probability

that corrosion of the steel reinforcement is occurring (Section 12.1).

3.5.2 Curbs & Sidewalks

There is no side walk on the bridge.

The concrete safety curbs were found to be in an overall fair to poor condition. Light to medium

scaling, spalling, corrosion of reinforcement and AAR were observed throughout the north and

south curbs (Section 11.0, Photo 18)

One core was taken from the north safety curb to investigate the bond between the curb and

concrete deck. The extracted core (CB-1) did not reveal of evidence of construction cold joint or

crack at the expected depth for construction joint. The concrete cover to the rebar found to be

75 mm with no evidence of rust on the rebar.

The original drawings do not indicate existence of any embedded utility ducts or other potential

sources of hazardous material.


Ainley Group Page 7

3.5.3 Abutment Walls

The exposed surfaces of the concrete abutment walls were inspected and sounded to check for

delamination. Both east and west abutment walls were found to be in fair condition with

localized light to medium scaling, delamination, and spalling. Abutment walls also evidence

narrow to medium cracks with surface rust stain (Section 11.0, Photos 19 and 20).

Concrete cover survey was measured for both east and west abutment walls. Concrete cover

readings for east abutment wall range from 85 mm to 115 mm, with an average of 99 mm.

Cover readings for west abutment wall range from 79 mm to 116 mm, with an average of 97 mm

(Section 12.3).

Corrosion potential survey was completed for both abutment walls. The half-cell readings for the

east wall ranged from -0.396 V to -0.609 V, with an average of -0.476 V. West wall half-cell

readings ranged from -0.350 V to -0.589 V, with an average of -0.432 V. The half-cell readings

indicate that 100% of both abutment walls has a 90% probability that corrosion of the steel

reinforcement is occurring (Section 12.1).

The chloride ion content of concrete in abutment walls was measured in one (1) representative

core (EA-1) taken from east abutment wall. The chloride ion content profile at core EA-1 shows

that the chloride ion content increased from the first horizon to the second horizon and followed

the typical decreasing pattern after the second horizon. A crack was observed in the subject

core extended to the horizon depth of 20 mm to 30 mm which could explain the observed

anomaly in the chloride ion content profile. The lower chloride content in the outer surface of the

abutment could therefore be attributed to potential washing effect of run-off water through the

crack. The chloride ion content at core EA-1 did not level off; as such, no background value was

obtained from the core to adjust the reading.

The chloride content measurement for the core EA-1 ranges from 0.168% to 0.5% by mass of

concrete. In accordance with MTO Rehabilitation Manual, the chloride threshold value

necessary to depassivate embedded steel and permit corrosion (in the presence of oxygen and

moisture) is 0.025% by mass of concrete. The chloride content in Core EA-1 was tested to a

depth 90 mm. The average cover to the top of steel reinforcement is found to be 99 mm and

therefore there is no reading available at the rebar level. Nevertheless, regression of the data


Ainley Group Page 8

obtained for lower depths indicates that the chloride content at the level of top rebar will most

likely be above the 0.025% threshold.

3.5.4 Wingwalls

The exposed surfaces of the concrete wingwalls were inspected and sounded to check for

delamination. They were found to be in an overall fair condition evidencing narrow to medium

mapping cracks and medium AAR (Section 11.0, Photos 21 to 24).

3.5.5 Embankments and Slope Protections

The condition of the embankments were found to be fair to good for all four quadrants

evidencing minor erosion on the northeast and northwest embankments. (Section 11.0, Photos

21 to 24).

Masonry retaining wall (or potential old bridge abutments) exist to the north of bridge located

approximately 3 m from the bridge. They both show evidence of erosion with loose material at

the base of the wall.

3.5.6 Approach Guiderail

Protection on the bridge approaches was provided by steel beam guiderail (SBGR) with wooden

posts and buried end treatments at all quadrants. The condition of the guiderail is fair to poor,

evidencing local collision damage at numerous locations, as well as a longitudinal split of the

steel railing at its connection to concrete end post on the southeast quadrant. The wooden posts

found to be in overall fair condition evidencing localized minor erosion at the base of the posts

and skewed offset blocks (Section 11.0, Photos 28 and 29).


Ainley Group Page 9

4.0 Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets

4.1 Asphalt Covered Deck / Deck Riding Surface

Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No. 026-0034)

OSIM Identifier: Decks

4.1.1 Dimensions and Area

Width between N/E abutment curbs: 7.32 m.

Width between S/W abutment curbs: 7.32 m.

Length between abutment joints: 10.36 m. Area of deck riding surface: 75.8 m2.

4.1.2 Asphalt Surface Cracks

Orientation Unsealed Sealed

Remarks

Transverse 28.0 7.5 m Medium to wide cracks were used to determine quantity.

Longitudinal 30.0 7.0 m

Random 2.5 0 m

4.1.3 Asphalt Condition and Depth

Condition*

Depth

Remarks

Min Max Avg.

F to P 85 111 97 mm

* G - Good F - Fair P - Poor V - Variable Good to Poor


Ainley Group Page 10

4.1.4 Waterproofing

Type Condition* Conc. Bond* Thickness (mm) **

Min Max Avg. Remarks

- - - - - - No waterproofing on bridge deck based on sawn samples and cores.

* G - Good F - Fair P - Poor V - Variable Good to Poor

** Report only thickness of waterproofing membrane but note presence of protection board

4.1.5 Concrete Cover – Core and Sawn Samples

Minimum Maximum Average Remarks

91 110 98 mm

Note: Only includes covers for top upper layers of rebar.

4.1.6 Corrosion Activity


-0.422 V -0.620 V -0.587 V V Readings were taken at core and sawn sample locations

0.00 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 <-0.45 V Remarks

0 0 0 6.75 66.75 m2 Quantities are based on the actual surveyed area. 0 0 0 9.2 90.8 %



4.1.7 Defective Cores and Sawn Samples

Corrosion Activity (Volts)

Cores and Sawn Samples

Total in Each Area

Delaminated, Spalled, Severe Scaling and

Disintegration * Medium Scaling *

No. m² % No. m² %

0 to -0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-0.20 to -0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-0.35 to -0.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

< -0.45 9 4 29.4 40.0 5 37.35 50.8

* The percent calculation should be of the entire deck area investigated. The

values should be used with caution as large errors may occur when a small number of samples are used for the calculation or when the samples are not randomly distributed over the entire deck area.

4.1.8 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile

Corrosion Activity at Core Locations (volts)

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ˂ -0.35

Remarks

The chloride ion content at core C5 did not level off, as such, no background value was obtained from the core.

Chloride Content *

0-10 mm - - 0.317

20-30 mm - - 0.220

40-50 mm - - 0.184

60-70 mm - - 0.058

80-90 mm - - 0.115

100-110 mm - - N/A

* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides for all taken in range of corrosion potential



4.1.9 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar

Core No. C5 Remarks

The reading for the depth of 60-70 mm was considered as an outlier

Chloride Content *

0.115

Corrosion Potential

-0.527 V

* Chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides

4.1.10 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)

Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC Resistance *

Connection #1 Connection #2

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A

G5

N/A

* See Appendix 1E for calculating AC resistance contributed by individual rebar

4.1.11 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)

IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2 True Half Cell

Potential *

Connection #1 (Positive)

Connection #2 (negative)

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A

G5

N/A



* Half cell reading taken on the same rebar with the ground connection

4.1.12 Concrete Air Entrainment

Remarks

Concrete Air Entrained? Yes No Marginal Based on 2014 Detailed Deck Condition Survey.

4.1.13 Compressive Strength

Remarks

Average Compressive Strength: 36.0 MPa N/A Based on 2014 Detailed Deck Condition Survey.



4.2 Exposed Concrete Components – South Barrier (EBL)

Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)

OSIM Identifier: Barriers

Component Type & Location: South Concrete Safety Curb, Railing and Posts (Interior)


Width: 0.3 m Length: 9.14 m

Height: 0.8 m Void Area: 3.1 m²

Total Area Surveyed: 4.2 m2

4.2.2 Cracks (medium and wide)

Type Transverse Longitudinal Other Total Remarks

Medium Width

Clean 1.0 1.0 2.5 9.5 m

A half-cell and delamination survey was carried out on the interior face of the concrete railing and posts.

Stained 1.0 1.0 3.0

Wide Width

Clean 0 0.5 1.5 4 m

Stained 0 0.5 1.5

4.2.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction

Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction: 3.2 m2

4.2.4 Concrete Cover


21 37 26 mm

0- 20 mm 0

40- 60 mm 0 m2

0 0 %

20- 40 mm 4.2

Over 60 mm 0 m2

100 0 %





-0.422 -0.609 -0.497 V


0 0 0 0.2 4.00 m2

0 0 0 4.8 95.2 %

4.2.6 Delamination and Spalls

Defect Type Delaminations Spalls Patches

Area (m²) 1.0 2.0 0

Total Delaminations and Spalls Total Delaminations and Spalls

in Areas < -0.35 V

3.0 m² 71.4 % 3.0 m² 71.4 %

4.2.7 Scaling

Light Medium Serve to Very

Serve Remarks

1.7 2.5 0 m2

40.0 60.0 0 %

4.2.8 Honeycombing

Total Area: 0 m2




Corrosion Activity at Core Location (volts)

0 to -.20 -.20 to -.35 < -.35 Remarks

Chloride Content *

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -

* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides for all cores taken in each range of corrosion potential.


Remarks

Core No. - - - - - - - -

Chloride Content * - - - - - - - -



Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC

Resistance * Connection #1

Connection #2

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A



G5

N/A



IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2 True Half

Cell Potential *



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A

G5

N/A



Concrete Air Entrained? Yes No Marginal Unknown


Average Compressive Strength: Click here to enter number. MPa Unknown



4.3 Exposed Concrete Components – North Barrier (WBL)


OSIM Identifier: Barriers

Component Type & Location: North Concrete Safety Curb, Railing and Posts (Interior)


Width: 0.3 m Length: 9.14 m

Height: 0.8 m Void Arear: 3.1 m²

Total Area Surveyed: 4.2 m2


Type Transverse Longitudinal Other Total Remarks

Medium Width

Clean .5 2.5 1.0 10 m

A half-cell and delamination survey was carried out on the interior face of the concrete safety curb, railing and posts. Refer to Photo's 16 and 17 in Section 5.0

Stained 1.0 1.5 3.5

Wide Width

Clean 0 0.5 1.0

3.5 m Stained 0 0.5 1.5


Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction: 3.2 m2



48 67 56 mm

0- 20 mm 0

40- 60 mm 0 m2

0 0 %

20- 40 mm 4.2

Over 60 mm 0 m2

100 0 %





-0.399 -0.601 -0.52 V


0 0 0 0 4.2 m2

0 0 0 0 100 %



Area (m²) 0.5 1.3 0


in Areas < -0.35 V

1.8 m² 42.9 % 1.8 m² 42.9 %

4.3.7 Scaling


Serve

Remarks

1.4 2.8 0 m2

33.3 66.7 0 %

4.3.8 Honeycombing

Total Area: 0 m2





0 to -.20 -.20 to -.35 < -.35 Remarks

Chloride Content *

0-10 mm - - - No cores were test for chloride content in the north the barrier system.

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -



Remarks

Core No. CB-1 - - - - - - -

Chloride Content * - - - - - - - -





Connection #2

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A



G5

N/A




Cell Potential *



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A

G5

N/A








4.4 Exposed Concrete Components – West Abutment Wall


OSIM Identifier: Abutments

Component Type & Location: West Abutment Wall


Width: 8.32 m Length:

Height: 2.44 m Total Area Surveyed: 20.3 m2


Type Transverse Longitudinal Other Total

Remarks Pattern cracking localized on outer edges of wall.

Medium Width

Clean 1 1 2.0 11 m

Stained 0 1 6.0

Wide Width

Clean 0 0 0 0 m

Stained 0 0 0


Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction: 0 m2



78 116 97 mm

0- 20 mm 0

40- 60 mm 0 m2

0 0 %

20- 40 mm 0

Over 60 mm 20.3 m2

0 100 %





-0.350 -0.582 -0.467 V


0 0 0 5.28 15.02 m2

0 0 0 26.0 74.0 %



Area (m²) 1.5 1.0 0


in Areas < -0.35 V

2.5m² 12.3 % 2.5 m² 100 %

4.4.7 Scaling


Serve Remarks

Medium scaling localized along the bottom length of the wall. Light scaling throughout the remaining area of the wall.

16.4 4.6 0 m2

79.5 20.5 0 %

4.4.8 Honeycombing

Total Area: 0 m2





0 to -.20 -.20 to -.35 < -.35 Remarks

Chloride Content *

0-10 mm - - - No cores were taken from the west abutment wall. 20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -



Remarks

Core No. - - - - - - - -

Chloride Co * - - - - - - - -





Connection #2

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A

G5

N/A






Cell Potential *



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A

G5

N/A








4.5 Exposed Concrete Components – East Abutment Wall


OSIM Identifier: Abutments

Component Type & Location: East Abutment Wall


Width: 8.32 m Length:

Height: 2.44 m Total Area Surveyed: 20.3 m2


Type Transverse Longitudinal Other Total

Remarks Pattern cracking localized on outer edges of wall.

Medium Width

Clean 0 0 2.0 8 m

Stained 0 0 6.0

Wide Width

Clean 0 0 0 0 m

Stained 0 0 0


Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction: 0 m2



89 115 103 mm

0- 20 mm 0

40- 60 mm 0 m2

0 0 %

20- 40 mm 0

Over 60 mm 20.3 m2

0 100 %





-0.396 -0.61 -0.476 V


0 0 0 2.59 17.71 m2

0 0 0 12.8 87.2 %



Area (m²) 1.0 1.0 0


in Areas < -0.35 V

2.0 m² 9.9 % 2.5 m² 9.9 %

4.5.7 Scaling

Light Medium Serve to Very Serve Remarks

Medium scaling localized along the bottom length of

the wall. Light scaling throughout the remaining

area of the wall.

17.0 3.3 0 m2

83.7 16.3 0 %

4.5.8 Honeycombing

Total Area: 0 m2





0 to -.20 -.20 to -.35 < -.35 Remarks

Chloride Content *

0-10 mm - - 0.234 The chloride ion

content at core

EA-1 did not level

off, as such, no

background value

was obtained

from the core.

20-30 mm - - 0.500

40-50 mm - - 0.346

60-70 mm - - 0.247

80-90 mm - - 0.168

100-110 mm - - -



Remarks

Core No. EA-1 - - - - - - -

Chloride Content * 0.168 - - - - - - -







Connection #2

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A

G5

N/A




Cell Potential *



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A

G2

N/A

G3

N/A

G4

N/A

G5

N/A








4.6 Exposed Concrete Components – West Wing Walls (N/A)

4.7 Exposed Concrete Components – East Wing Walls (N/A)



4.8 Expansion Joints (N/A)

Site No.: Click here to enter number.

Dimensions

Abutments Intermediate Remarks

Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 4

N E S W

a (mm)

b (mm)

b' (mm)

c (mm)

d (mm)

d' (mm)

e (mm)

Depth of Asphalt @ Deck Side N/E S/W N/E S/W

1 (mm)

2 (mm)

3 (mm)

Width: Top of Ballast Wall and End Dams

N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W

1 (mm)

2 (mm)

3 (mm)

Gap Dimensions

1 (mm)

2 (mm)

3 (mm)



Misc. Joint Details Skew Angle Click here to enter skew

angle. o Remarks

Exp.

Fixed

Type

Leaking

Angle Size

Temp ˚C Deck Ambient

Typical Sections at Joints

X-X Y-Y



4.9 Drainage

Deck Drains

Number Type Length Angle Depth Remarks

6 Steel 864

35

Deck drains in poor condition. Three of the six drains are obstructed with debris and all visible drains severely corroded. Deck drains do not extend below soffit.

* For asphalt covered decks, recess depth in mm between top of

asphalt and top of drain. Remarks

Catch Basins Yes * *

No * *

* Identify location of catch basins as N/E, N/W, S/E etc. using the same direction of north as shown in the drawings

Remarks

Drainage Tubes

Yes Void Drains

Yes

No No



5.0 Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures

Component Type: Deck, Abutment walls and Barrier Systems


Date of Survey: May 24, 2017

5.1 Delaminations

Weight of Chain: 2.2 kg/m

Other Equipment: Hammer

5.2 Concrete Cover

Covermeter Make & Model: Elcometer 331 Battery Check: Reading at Start of Test: OK

Reading at End of Test: OK. Concrete Cover Check: Location of Check: Exposed rebar on north barrier.

Actual Depth & Rebar Dia.: 50 mm & 20 mm Reading before Test: 51 mm Readings Each 30 min During Test: 51 mm Reading End of Test: 51 mm



5.3 Corrosion Activity

Half Cell Make & Model: Giatec

Multimeter Make & Model: Mastercraft Digital Multimeter 052-0060-2

Length and Gauge of Lead Wires: 30 m and 18 Guage

Deck Temp: Start of Test: 21 oC End of Test: 31 oC

Ambient Temp: Start of Test: 20 oC End of Test: 28 oC

Battery Check: Good

Ground Check: Method of Connection: Alligator Clip

Ground Location: C3 Check Location: C5

Lead Resistance: Voltage Drop (mV’s): #Ω

Resistance c: 0.7 Ω Resistance Reversed: #Ω

Grid Point Potential Readings Check- See Table Below

Location Initial Reading Check Readinga

Check Reading

– Latex Concrete Overlayb

Bridge Deck (C3) -0.614 V -0.610 V N/A



Bridge Deck (C2) -0.616 V -0.611V N/A

a Check at least 5 readings at beginning of test and each change in ground.

b On decks with latex modified concrete overlay, check at least 5 locations by drilling holes through the latex concrete overlay into the original concrete substrate.

c Resistance is the net resistance after deducting the lead resistance.



6.0 Core Logs – Asphalt Covered Bridge Decks

Page 1 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)

Core No. C1 C2 C3

Location D7 B2 C5

Diameter, mm 98 97 94

Thickness of Asphalt, mm 104 86 96

Thickness of Asphalt at nearest grid point

104 86 96

Thickness of Concrete, mm 110 103 96

Full Depth, (yes/no) No No No

Condition of Asphalt (1) F F F

Waterproofing (W/P) type No No No

Condition of W/P (1) N/A N/A N/A

W/P Thickness, mm N/A N/A N/A

Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete

F F F

Defects in Concrete (2) None None None

Condition of Rebar (3) LR LR LR

Corrosion Potential -0.569 V -0.616 V -0.614 V

Compressive Strength, Mpa N/A N/A N/A

Chloride Content

Total Corrected Total Corrected Total Corrected

0 - 10mm - - - - - -

(% Chloride by Weight of Concrete)

20 - 30mm - - - - - -

40 - 50mm - - - - - -

60 - 70mm - - - - - -

80 - 90mm - - - - - -

100-110mm - - - - - -




Air Voids

Air Content, % N/A N/A N/A

Spec. Surf.,mm²/mm³

N/A N/A N/A

Spacing Factor, mm

N/A N/A N/A

Test Laboratory N/A N/A N/A

Remarks

Orientation of rebars and cover

Presence of overlay, patch, and thickness

Other observed defects

E-W rebar orientation

1. Condition - G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor.

2. Defects - C = Cracked, D = Delamination, R = Rough, Sc = Scaling, S = Spalling

3. Condition of Rebar - LR = Light Rust, SR = Severe Rust, N/A = No rebar exposed.

Condition of Epoxy Coating - ECG = Good, ECF = Fair, ECP = Poor - rusted & debonded areas




Core No. C4 C5 C6

Location D2 E7

Diameter, mm 96 95 94


Thickness of Asphalt at nearest grid point

87 111 N/A

Thickness of Concrete, mm 91.0 92.0 N/A

Full Depth, (yes/no) No No Yes


Waterproofing (W/P) type No No No



Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete

F F N/A

Defects in Concrete (2) None L Sc N/A

Condition of Rebar (3) LR LR N/A

Corrosion Potential -0.575 V -0.542 V N/A

Compressive Strength, Mpa N/A N/A N/A

Chloride Content

Total Corrected Total Corrected Total Corrected

0 - 10mm - - 0.317 - - -

% Chloride by Weight of Concrete

20 - 30mm - - 0.220 - - -

40 - 50mm - - 0.184 - - -

60 - 70mm - - 0.058 - - -

80 - 90mm - - 0.115 - - -

100-100mm - - - - -




Air Voids

Air Content, % N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A

Spacing Factor, mm

N/A N/A N/A

Test Laboratory N/A Golders

Associates N/A

Remarks




E-W rebar orientation

The chloride ion content at core C5

did not level off, as such, no

background value was obtained from

the core.

Used to confirm the presence of

approach slab. No approach slab

exists.




Condition of Epoxy Coating - ECG = Good, ECF = Fair, ECP = Poor - rusted & debonded areas



7.0 Core Photographs and Sketches

Core C1



Core C2



Core C3



Core C4



Core C5



Core CB-1



Core EA-1



8.0 Asphalt Sawn Sample Logs

Sample No. S1 S2 S3

Location D6 D4 B5

Size, mm X mm 300 x 300 340 x 280 420 x 330


Thickness of Asphalt at Nearest Grid Point 100 110 90


Waterproofing (W/P) Type No No No



Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete F F F

Concrete Cover to Reinf., mm (Note orientation of rebar)

N/A 105 80

Defects in Concrete Surface (2) Sc (Severe) D, Sc

(Severe) Sc (Medium)

Corrosion Potential at Nearest Grid Point -0.569 V -0.574 V -0.618

Remarks

No Waterproofing

No Waterproofing

No Waterproofing





Sample No. S4

Location B2

Size, mm X mm 340 x 350

Thickness of Asphalt, mm 85

Thickness of Asphalt at Nearest Grid Point 86

Condition of Asphalt (1) F

Waterproofing (W/P) Type No

W/P Thickness, mm N/A

Condition of W/P (1) N/A

Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete F

Concrete Cover to Reinf., mm (Note orientation of rebar)

N/A

Defects in Concrete Surface (2) Sc (Medium)

Corrosion Potential at Nearest Grid Point - 0.487 V

Remarks

No Waterproofing





9.0 Core Log for Exposed Concrete

Page 1 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No. 026-0034)

Core No. CB-1

(North Safety Curb) EA-1

(East Abutment Wall)

Location

B2

Diameter, mm 40.0 71.0

Length, mm 265.0 133.0

Full Depth (Yes/No) Yes No

Defects in Concrete (2) None Sc

Condition of Rebar (3) LR LR

Corrosion Potential (At Closest Grid Point)

- 0.553 V - 0.500 V

Chloride Content

Total Corrected Total Corrected

0 - 10mm - - 0.234 -

(% Chloride by Weight of Concrete)

20 - 30mm - - 0.500 -

40 - 50mm - - 0.346 -

60 - 70mm - - 0.247 -

80 - 90mm - - 0.168 -

Air Voids

Air Content, % - -


- -

Spacing Factor, mm

- -

Test Laboratory - Golder Associates



Page 2 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No. 026-0034)

Remarks




The chloride ion content

at core EA-1 did not level

off, as such, no

background value was

obtained from the core.






10.0 Asphalt Sawn Sample Photographs

Sawn Sample S1

Sawn Sample S2



Sawn Sample S3

Sawn Sample S4



11.0 Site Photographs

Photo 1: North Elevation

Photo 2: South Elevation



Photo 3: Asphalt Wearing Surface - Typical

Photo 4: Approach and Asphalt Deck Wearing Surface – Typical (Light to Server

Longitudinal Cracking)



Photo 5: Asphalt Wearing Surface – Typical (Light to Severe Alligator Cracking)

Photo 6: Deck Drain - Typical



Photo 7: Deck Drain – Obstructed With Mud and Debris

Photo 8: Southeast Exterior Soffit – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling, Spalling,

Delaminations and Corrosion of Reinforcement)



Photo 9: North Exterior Soffit – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling, Spalling, Delaminations

and Corrosion of Reinforcement)

Photo 10: South Exterior Soffit – Typical (Light to Very Severe Delaminations, Spalling,

Scaling and Corrosion of Reinforcement)



Photo 11: Interior Soffit – Typical (Light to Medium Scaling, Delaminations, Efflorescence


Photo 12: North Interior Concrete Parapet Wall – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling AAR




Photo 13: Steel Beam Guide Rail Connection to a Concrete Parapet Wall (Exterior) -

Typical (Light to Medium Scaling and AAR)

Photo 14: South Concrete Barrier Railing – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling, Spalling,

AAR and Medium Corrosion of Reinforcement)



Photo 15: South Concrete Barrier Railing – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling, Spalling,

AAR and Medium Corrosion of Reinforcement)

Photo 16: North Concrete Barrier – Severe Delamination, Disintegration and Corrosion of

Reinforcement



Photo 17: North Concrete Barrier – Typical (Severe Scaling and Spalling)

Photo 18: South Concrete Barrier Curb – Typical (Light to Medium Scaling, AAR and

Corrosion of Reinforcement)



Photo 19: East Abutment Wall – Typical (Light to Medium AAR, Scaling, Spalling and

Corrosion of Reinforcement)

Photo 20: West Abutment Wall and Soffit – Typical (Typical (Light to Medium AAR,

Scaling, Spalling and Corrosion of Reinforcement)



Photo 21: Southwest Wingwall - Typical

Photo 22: Southwest Wingwall - Typical



Photo 23: Northwest Wingwall – Typical (Medium AAR)

Photo 24: Northeast Wingwall - Typical



Photo 25: West Approach – Typical (Narrow to Wide Longitudinal, Transverse and

Alligator Cracking)

Photo 26: East Approach – Severe Depression



Photo 27: East Approach – Typical (Narrow to Wide Longitudinal, Transverse and

Alligator Cracking)

Photo 28: SBGR Connection to Parapet Wall – Longitudinal Split



Photo 29: SBGR End Treatment - Typical


Ainley Group

12.0 Drawings


Ainley Group

12.1 Corrosion Potential Contours

S4

C2

S3

C3

C4S2

S1C1

C5

Connection

Point

Connection

Point

Deck Corrosion Potential Contours

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

Bridge Deck and Curb Contours

North River Detailed Deck

Condition Survey

1425mm

1400mm

9975mm

10375mm

7000mm 7300mm

150mm

4321 5 6 7 8

B

C

A

D

E

F

North Barrier Corrosion Potential Contours

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

North Barrier Wall


Condition Survey

1425mm

400mm

200mm

250mm

150mm

10375mm

9975mm

800mm

2

A

3 4 5 6 7 8

B

C

1

South Barrier Corrosion Potential Contours

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

South Barrier Wall


Condition Survey

1425mm

400mm

200mm

250mm

150mm

10375mm

9975mm

800mm

2

A

3 4 5 6 7 8

B

C

1

Deck Drain

50mm

Deck Drain

50mm

Half-Cell

Connection

East Abutment Corrosion Potential Contours

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

East Abutment Wall


Condition Survey

1000mm

1000mm

200mm

8000mm

8500mm

2000mm 2400mm

32

A

4 5 6 7 8 9

B

C

1

Deck Drain

50mm

Deck Drain

50mm

Half-Cell

Connection

West Abutment Corrosion Potential Contours

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

West Abutment Wall


Condition Survey

1000mm

1000mm

200mm

8000mm

8500mm

2000mm 2400mm

32

A

4 5 6 7 8 9

B

C

1


Ainley Group

12.2 Delamination Survey

Deck Drain

- Severe Spalling/Scaling - Delamination - Wide Crack

Soffit Delamination Survey

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

Soffit Delamination Survey


Condition Survey

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

9140mm

9000mm

900mm

1000mm

70mm

7000mm 7300mm

150mm

EA-1


East Abutment Delamination Survey

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

East Abutment Delamination Survey


Condition Survey

1000mm

1000mm

200mm

32

A

4 5 6 7 8 9

B

C

1

Light to moderate

scaling and spalling

throughout

abutment.


West Abutment Delamination Survey

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

West Abutment Delamination Survey


Condition Survey

1000mm

1000mm

200mm

32

A

4 5 6 7 8 9

B

C

1


Ainley Group

12.3 Asphalt Cover and Concrete Cover

104 mm

110 mm

100 mm110 mm87 mm

91 mm

85 mm 86 mm

103 mm

90 mm

96 mm

96 mm

111 mm

92 mm

Asph. Thickness

Conc. Thickness

(TYP.)

Asphalt and Concrete Cover

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

Asphalt and Concrete Cover


Condition Survey

1425mm

1400mm

417.5mm

9975mm

9140mm

7000mm 7300mm

150mm

4321 5 6 7 8

A

B

C

D

E

F

57 mm

69 mm

79 mm

50 mm

61 mm

49 mm

52 mm

71 mm

53 mm

70 mm

74 mm

52 mm

72 mm

65 mm

59 mm

69 mm

57 mm

50 mm

62 mm

63 mm

67 mm

68 mm

75 mm

61 mm

North Barrier Wall Cover

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

North Barrier Wall Cover


Condition Survey

1425mm

400mm

2

A

3 4 5 6 7 8

B

C

1

44 mm

55 mm

35 mm

55 mm

51 mm

37 mm

38 mm

39 mm

18 mm

51 mm

56 mm

21 mm

60 mm

55 mm

22 mm

66 mm

63 mm

27 mm

71 mm

70 mm

22 mm

75 mm

73 mm

21 mm

South Barrier Wall Cover

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

South Barrier Wall Cover


Condition Survey

1425mm

400mm

2

A

3 4 5 6 7 8

B

C

1

112 mm

101 mm

113 mm 108 mm 115 mm 110 mm 103 mm 102 mm 105 mm 115 mm

92 mm 100 mm 90 mm 93 mm 101 mm 94 mm 89 mm 110 mm

EA-1

105 mm 98 mm 101mm 108 mm 109 mm 105 mm 100 mm 110 mm96 mm

East Abutment Concrete Cover

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

East Abutment Cover


Condition Survey

1000mm

1000mm

200mm

32

A

4 5 6 7 8 9

B

C

1

79 mm

86 mm

91 mm

92 mm 88 mm 89 mm 110 mm 107 mm 105 mm 108 mm

94 mm 90 mm 106 mm 105 mm 115 mm 116 mm 110 mm

86 mm 78 mm 83 mm 79 mm 89 mm 84 mm 107 mm

96 mm

106 mm

110 mm

West Abutment Concrete Cover

Date: AG File# :

Project # : 1704

17523-1

05/30/2017

West Abutment Cover


Condition Survey

1000mm

1000mm

200mm

32

A

4 5 6 7 8 9

B

C

1


Ainley Group

Yours truly,

AINLEY GRAHAM AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Ramin Rameshni, Ph.D, P.Eng.

Senior Structural Engineer

north river bridge · north river bridge – 2017 detailed bridge condition survey county of...

Documents